PAGE 8 | February 17 , 2017 | NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS
...‘Right-to-work’ laws spreading
From Page 1
2011, but was vetoed by a Dem-
ocratic governor. Now the state
has a Republican governor who
has vowed to sign it.
Right-to-work until recent
years was confined mostly to
southern and prairie states
where unions were historically
weak. But in 2012, Michigan
and Indiana went right-to-work,
followed by Wisconsin in 2015
and West Virginia in 2016.
No state has ever repealed a
right-to-work law once it
passed, probably because the
law permanently weakens
unions in those states. But Mis-
souri unions will try to overturn
the right-to-work law before it
takes effect on Aug. 28.
On Feb. 7, the Missouri AFL-
CIO together with the Missouri
NAACP filed a petition for a
referendum. If they collect
roughly 90,000 signatures by
Aug. 28, the law will be put on
hold, and voters will get to de-
cide on it in November 2018.
Meanwhile, in the Washing-
ton state senate, a Feb. 8 com-
mittee hearing on a right-to-
work bill drew as many as 1,100
union supporters to rally and
testify in opposition, filling
hearing and overflow rooms. SB
5692 — sponsored by Republi-
can state Senators Michael
Baumgartner of Spokane and
John Braun of Centralia — has
no chance of getting through
Washington’s Democratic-ma-
jority House. But Washington
unions felt it was important to
make a strong stand against it in
the Republican-led state senate.
Nationwide right-to-work?
And on Feb. 1, U.S. Congress-
men Steve King (R-Iowa) and
Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina)
introduced the National Right-
to-Work Act, HR 785. It would
bar mandatory union dues re-
quirements, not just for private
sector workers covered by the
National Labor Relations Act,
‘Right-to-work’ states (those in red) bar any requirement to pay union dues.
but also for airline and rail
workers covered by the Railway
Labor Act. Similar bills have
been introduced in every session
of Congress, but this year, Re-
publicans control both chambers
of Congress plus the White
House — for the second time
since 1928. Republicans con-
trolled the House, Senate, and
White House from 2003 to
2007, when George W. Bush
was president, but it wasn’t until
2012 that the official Republi-
can Party platform called for
passage of a nationwide right-
to-work law. President Trump
didn’t campaign on right-to-
“I like right to work. My position on right to work is 100 percent.… It’s better for
the people. You’re not paying the big fees to the unions. The unions get big fees.
A lot of people don't realize they have to pay a lot of fees. I am talking about the
workers. They have to pay big fees to the union. I like it because it gives great flexi-
bility to the people. It gives great flexibility to the companies.”
— Donald Trump, Feb. 17, 2016, in an interview with South Carolina Radio Network
work, but in a February 2016 ra-
dio interview, he said he’s for it.
Still, HR 785 might have a
difficult time getting through the
U.S. Senate if the bill is subject
to the Senate’s filibuster rule:
No Senate Democrats support
right-to-work, and Republicans
have only 54 of the 60 seats
they’d need to overcome a fili-
buster. As of press time, HR 785
had just nine sponsors or co-
sponsors in the House.
The bigger threat is that a
court case could establish right-
to-work for all public employ-
ees nationwide. The U.S.
Supreme Court went part of the
way there in 2014 in the Harris
v. Quinn case, in which the court
mandated right-to-work status
for union-represented home care
workers who are paid by the
state. Last year, a case called
Friedrichs vs. California Teach-
ers Association could have done
the same for all public sector
workers, but the death of
Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia left the Court split 4-4.
Expecting Trump’s Supreme
Court appointee to provide the
fifth anti-union vote, union foes
filed a very similar lawsuit,
Yohn v. California Teachers As-
sociation, on Feb. 6.